CAR_Public/120501.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Tuesday, May 1, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 85

                             Headlines

AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Still Defends "Lenartz" IPO Class Suit
ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: 8th Circuit Denied "Angevine" Suit Appeal
ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Court Certified "Adams" Suit in March
ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Faces "Anderson" Class Suit in Missouri
BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Faces Class Action Over BB&T Sale

CANADA: Victorville Red Light Camera Suit Moved to Fed. Ct.
CCA INDUSTRIES: Calif. Court Dismissed "Shirilla" Class Suit
CCA INDUSTRIES: "Hoffman" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed in April
CITIZENS BANK: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $137.5MM
DYNEGY INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in New York

EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Eleven Merger-Related Class Suits Resolved
ENGLOBAL CORP: Retaliation Claim Pending in "Phillips" Suit
GERBER LEGENDARY: Recalls 3,000 Gerber(R) Instant(TM) Knives
GROUPON: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
HOLLISTER: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Elevated Entrances

IMAX CORP: June 14 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Sues Gov't. Over Cigarette Package Warning
JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued Over Advance Payments Processing Practices
KAWASAKI MOTORS: Recalls 2,000 Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles
KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit

MANHATTAN GROUP: Recalls 3,150 Whoozit(R) Starry Baby Rattles
MSC LLC: Files Suit for Alleged Bid Rigging at Tax Lien Auctions
REDBOX AUTOMATED: Movie Renters Can File 2nd Amended Complaint
REDDY ICE: Still Awaits OK of Class Suit Settlement in Canada
REDDY ICE: Continues to Defend Indirect Purchaser MDL in Mich.

REDDY ICE: Reached Tentative Agreement to Settle Securities Suit
STARBUCKS: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
SWISHER HYGIENE: Roy Jacobs & Associates Files Class Action
TALBOTS INC: Awaits Dismissal Bid Ruling in "Washtenaw" Suit
TALBOTS INC: Defends "Lowe" Shareholder Class Suit in Delaware

TARGET CORP: Recalls 264,000 Bunny Sippy Cups Due to Injury Risk
TEAVANA HOLDINGS: Defends Wage and Hour Suit in California
TIBCO SOFTWARE: IPO Suit Global Settlement Has Become Final
VEOLIA ENVIRONNEMENT: Faces Securities Class Suits in New York
VEOLIA ENVIRONNEMENT: Plaintiffs Appeal Indiana Suit Dismissal

* CFPB to Probe Mandatory Arbitration Clauses
* UK: Government Mulls Class Action-Style Competition Reforms


                          *********

AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Still Defends "Lenartz" IPO Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Between April 6, 2011, and April 29, 2011, six putative securities
class action complaints were filed against American Superconductor
Corporation and two of its officers in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.  On
May 12, 2011, an additional complaint was filed against the
Company, its officers and directors, and the underwriters who
participated in the Company's November 12, 2010 securities
offering.  On June 7, 2011, the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts consolidated these actions under the
caption Lenartz v. American Superconductor Corporation, et al.
Docket No. 1:11-cv-10582-WGY.  On June 16, 2011, the court
appointed the law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead
Counsel and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund as
Lead Plaintiff.  On August 31, 2011, the Lead Plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint against the Company, its officers
and directors, and the underwriters who participated in the
Company's November 12, 2010 securities offering, asserting claims
under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as well as under sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  The complaint alleges that during the
relevant class period, the Company and its officers omitted to
state material facts and made materially false and misleading
statements relating to, among other things, the Company's
projected and recognized revenues and earnings, as well as the
Company's relationship with Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd. that
artificially inflated the value of the Company's stock price.  The
complaint further alleges that the Company's November 12, 2010
securities offering contained untrue statements of material facts
and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, rescindment of the
Company's November 12, 2010 securities offering, and an award of
costs and expenses, including attorney's fees.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 13, 2012,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

If a matter is both probable to result in liability and the
amounts of loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company estimates
and discloses the possible loss or range of loss.  With respect to
the litigation matters, the Company says such an estimate cannot
be made.  There are numerous factors that make it difficult to
meaningfully estimate possible loss or range of loss at this stage
of these litigation matters, including that: the proceedings are
in relatively early stages, there are significant factual and
legal issues to be resolved, information obtained or rulings made
during the lawsuits could affect the methodology for calculation
of rescission and the related statutory interest rate.  In
addition, with respect to claims where damages are the requested
relief, no amount of loss or damages has been specified.
Therefore, the Company is unable at this time to estimate possible
losses.  The Company believes that the litigation is without
merit, and it intends to defend these actions vigorously.


ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: 8th Circuit Denied "Angevine" Suit Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied in July
2011 Richard F. Angevine's appeal from the dismissal his class
action lawsuit, Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV disclosed in its
April 13, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On December 1, 2009, Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV, Anheuser-Busch
Companies and the Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan were sued
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri in a lawsuit styled Richard F. Angevine v. Anheuser-Busch
InBev SA/NV, et al.  The plaintiff sought to represent a class of
certain employees of Busch Entertainment Corporation, which was
divested on December 1, 2009, and the four Metal Container
Corporation plants which were divested on October 1, 2009.  He
also sought to certify a class action and represent certain
employees of any other Anheuser-Busch Companies subsidiary that
has been divested or may be divested during the three-year period
from the date of the Anheuser-Busch acquisition, November 18, 2008
through November 17, 2011.  Among other things, the lawsuit
claimed that the Company failed to provide him and the other class
members (if certified) with certain enhanced benefits, and
breached the Company's fiduciary duties under the U.S. Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

On July 16, 2010, the court dismissed plaintiff's lawsuit.  The
court ruled that the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and
punitive damages were not proper.  The court also found that the
plaintiff did not exhaust all of his administrative remedies,
which he must first do before filing a lawsuit.  On August 9,
2010, the plaintiff filed an appeal of this decision to the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied on July 22, 2011.


ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Court Certified "Adams" Suit in March
-----------------------------------------------------------
An Ohio Court certified in March 2012 that the case initiated by
Rusby Adams, et al., could proceed as a class action comprised of
former employees of Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV's divested Metal
Container Corporation operations, according to the Company's April
13, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On September 15, 2010, Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV and several of
its related companies were sued in Federal Court for the Southern
District of Ohio in a lawsuit entitled Rusby Adams et al. v. AB
InBev, et al.  This lawsuit was filed by four employees of Metal
Container Corporation's facilities in Columbus, Ohio, Gainesville,
Florida, and Ft. Atkinson, Wisconsin, that were divested on
October 1, 2009.  Similar to the lawsuit filed by Richard F.
Angevine, these plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
participants of the Anheuser-Busch Companies Salaried Employees'
Pension Plan (the "Plan") who had been employed by Anheuser-Busch
Companies subsidiaries that had been divested during the period of
November 18, 2008, through November 17, 2011.  The plaintiffs also
allege claims similar to the Angevine lawsuit, namely, that by
failing to provide plaintiffs with these enhanced benefits, the
Company breached its fiduciary duties under the U.S. Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  The Company filed a
Motion to Dismiss and obtained dismissal of the breach of
fiduciary duty claims in April 2011, leaving only the claims for
benefits remaining.

On March 28, 2012, the Court certified that the case could proceed
as a class action comprised of former employees of the divested
Metal Container Corporation operations.


ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Faces "Anderson" Class Suit in Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV is facing a class action lawsuit
captioned Nancy Anderson et al. v. Anheuser-Busch Companies
Pension Plan, et al., according to the Company's April 13, 2012,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On January 10, 2012, a class action complaint asserting claims
very similar to those asserted in the lawsuit commenced by Richard
F. Angevine was filed in Federal Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, styled Nancy Anderson et al. v. Anheuser-Busch Companies
Pension Plan et al.  Unlike the Angevine case, however, the
plaintiff in this matter alleges complete exhaustion of all
administrative remedies.  This complaint has not yet been served.


BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Faces Class Action Over BB&T Sale
-------------------------------------------------------
A new lawsuit has been filed seeking to block BankAtlantic
Bancorp's deal to sell its banking franchise and most of its
assets to BB&T Corp., the South Florida Business Journal reports.

Saying he is the representative of a shareholder class action, J.
Phillip Max filed a lawsuit in Broward County Circuit Court on
April 2 against BankAtlantic Bancorp and all of its directors,
including Chairman and CEO Alan B. Levan, plus BB&T and BFC
Financial Corp., the majority owner of BankAtlantic Bancorp.

The complaint alleges the deal undervalues BankAtlantic Bancorp
shares and unjustly rewards its executives by paying them about
$11 million in noncompete and severance awards.

This is the second time that the deal announced in November
between BankAtlantic Bancorp and BB&T has been challenged in
court.

BB&T is the fourth-largest bank in Central Florida with $1.8
billion in deposits and 42 branches in the area.


CANADA: Victorville Red Light Camera Suit Moved to Fed. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brooke Edwards Staggs, writing for Daily Press, reports that the
class action lawsuit over Victorville's red light cameras has been
moved from state to federal court, with the city motioning to
dismiss the case while a local attorney gears up for a potentially
precedent-setting battle.

The venue change came at the request of Redflex Traffic Systems,
the private company that operates 10 cameras in Victorville and is
a codefendant in the case alongside the city.

In April 13 court documents requesting the switch, Redflex
attorneys argue the case deals with a federal law, since the
lawsuit claims Victorville's red light camera system violates due
process rights.

The camera company also argued a federal perspective is fitting
since most of the plaintiffs in the class action suit are from the
Victorville area while Redflex is based in Arizona and Delaware.

"It seems the city's ties to Redflex are so strong that Redflex's
lawyers somehow got the city to waive their right to stay in state
court," Robert Conaway, the Barstow attorney representing
Victorville resident Michael Curran and everyone who's been cited
by the cameras here, wrote in a statement on the switch.
"Hopefully the move was not to escape scrutiny by citizens in the
Victor Valley who are the victims of what Mr. Curran has alleged
in an unfair and illegal agreement and business practice."

The claim, which was filed in San Bernardino County Superior Court
in February, states the camera system "violates the long standing
legal rule that for an officer to cite a citizen for an
infraction, it must be done 'In the Presence' of the officer."
And, since employees with Redflex are the ones first viewing the
alleged violations, it states testimony from local deputies should
be inadmissible as evidence.

Mr. Conaway is hoping to recover more than $9 million in damages
on behalf of 4,300 people who've received tickets from
Victorville's red light cameras since they were installed in 2008.
He also hopes to recover up to three times that amount in punitive
damages from Redflex, or up to $28.5 million.

Fred Burnside -- fredburnside@dwt.com -- attorney for Redflex with
Davis Wright Tremaine in Los Angeles, declined to discuss the
active litigation.

Harvey Wimer III -- hwimer@gravesandking.com -- the Riverside-
based attorney with Graves & King who's representing Victorville
in the suit, didn't respond to requests for comment.

Victorville's motion to dismiss the case is scheduled to be heard
in U.S District Court on May 21.


CCA INDUSTRIES: Calif. Court Dismissed "Shirilla" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Shirilla v. CCA Industries,
Inc., has been dismissed, according to the Company's April 12,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended February 29, 2012.

On September 27, 2011, a lawsuit, entitled Shirilla v. CCA
Industries, Inc., was instituted against the Company in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.  The
plaintiff named in the complaint relating to the lawsuit seeks to
have the case certified as a class action.  The complaint alleged
unfair or deceptive business practices by the Company and asserted
that the Company made false and misleading claims about its "Mega-
T" product line in violation of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act and the California Business and Professions Code.
The complaint stated that the plaintiff was seeking an injunction
and other equitable remedies, and restitution, disgorgement and
unspecified monetary damages and expenses.  The Company denied the
allegations of wrongdoing and liability with regard to its
advertising and other business practices.  Moreover, the Company
believed that the claims asserted in the Shirilla matter were the
same as or similar to those asserted in the class action Wally v.
CCA Industries, Inc., which was filed in the same court in 2009
and was settled, without admission of any liability or allegations
made in the case, in 2010.  The court-approved settlement in Wally
dismissed all claims that were made, or could have been made, in
the case by members of the plaintiff class.  The Sharilla case was
moved to the United States District Court for the Central District
of California.

On January 12, 2012, plaintiff's counsel notified the Company's
attorney that they were seeking to dismiss the case, with
prejudice.  The case was subsequently dismissed by the United
States District Court, and the matter is now closed.


CCA INDUSTRIES: "Hoffman" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed in April
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harold M. Hoffman has voluntarily dismissed his class action
lawsuit against CCA Industries Inc., the Company disclosed in its
April 12, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended February 29, 2012.

On February 6, 2012, a class action lawsuit, entitled Harold M.
Hoffman v. CCA Industries, Inc. was instituted against the Company
in the Superior Court of New Jersey alleging that the Company made
false and misleading claims about its product Scar Zone.  The
Company moved to dismiss the action, after removing it to federal
court.  On April 4, 2012, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
action with prejudice, and the matter is now closed.


CITIZENS BANK: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $137.5MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Grossman Roth, P.A. on April 25 disclosed that Citizens Bank has
agreed to pay $137.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit
which accused the bank of manipulating its customers' debit card
and ATM transactions in order to generate excess overdraft fee
revenues for the bank.  The lawsuit, part of multidistrict
litigation involving more than 30 different banks entitled In re
Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, case number 09-cv-02036, is
pending before U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King in Miami.
Citizens Bank is part of Citizens Financial Group which, through
RBS Citizens, N.A. and Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania, operates
more than 1,500 retail banking branches throughout the Northeast,
the Mid-Atlantic and the Mid-West.

The lawsuit claims that Citizens Bank employed software programs
designed to extract the greatest possible number of overdraft fees
from its customers.  According to the lawsuit, Citizens Bank re-
sequenced its customers' debit card and ATM transactions by
posting them in highest-to-lowest dollar amount, rather than in
the actual order in which the transactions were initiated by the
customers and authorized by the bank.  According to the lawsuit,
this internal bookkeeping practice resulted in Citizens' customers
being charged substantially more in overdraft fees than if their
debit card and ATM transactions had been posted in the order in
which they were authorized by the bank.

"This is an outstanding recovery for Citizens' customers who were
affected by this practice.  We are extremely pleased to have
achieved this result," said Robert C. Gilbert with Grossman Roth
in Miami.  Mr. Gilbert serves as Plaintiffs' Coordinating Counsel
overseeing and managing all cases in this multidistrict litigation
proceeding.  He expects the settlement with Citizens Bank to be
presented to the Court for approval later this year.

Citizens Bank is not the first bank involved in this multidistrict
litigation to settle similar claims.  Last year, the Court
approved a $410 million settlement with Bank of America.
Settlements with a number of other banks have been announced over
the past six months.

In addition to Mr. Gilbert, the principal lawyers involved in the
Citizens Bank case are Aaron Podhurst and Peter Prieto of Podhurst
Orseck in Miami, and Ted Trief of Trief & Olk in New York.

Grossman Roth, P.A. founded in Miami in 1988, also maintains
offices in Ft. Lauderdale, Boca Raton, Sarasota and Key West.  The
firm concentrates its practice in the areas of class actions and
complex commercial litigation, catastrophic personal injury,
products liability, aviation, professional malpractice and other
cases involving significant economic or physical damages.


DYNEGY INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, case no. 12 Civ. 2307, on behalf of all persons who
purchased Dynegy Inc. common stock between September 2, 2011 and
March 9, 2012 inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants knew or recklessly failed to
inform investors that Dynegy's wholly-owned subsidiary
fraudulently transferred direct ownership in one of Dynegy's
indirectly owned subsidiaries directly to Dynegy.

On March 9, 2012, a bankruptcy examiner disclosed that Dynegy
improperly acquired direct ownership of the indirectly owned
subsidiary through a fraudulent transfer.  This news caused Dynegy
stock to drop approximately 35% by the close of the business day.
Then, on April 4, 2012, Dynegy announced that it had resolved the
Company's disputes with major creditors.  On this news, Company
stock plummeted by over 25%, closing at $0.39 per share.

On April 5, 2012, Dynegy received a notice from the New York Stock
Exchange ("NYSE") that the Company failed to comply with the
NYSE's continued listing standard.  Unless Dynegy's stock regains
values above $1 per share for any consecutive 30-day trading
period, it will be delisted in six months from the notification
date.  Dynegy closed at $0.33 on April 24, 2012.

If you purchased Dynegy stock between September 2, 2011 and
March 9, 2012, you may, not later than May 29, 2012, move the
court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

Contact:

          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Attn: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
          Francis McConville, Esq.
          E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
                  fmcconville@faruqilaw.com
          Telephone: (877) 247-4292
                     (212) 983-9330


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Eleven Merger-Related Class Suits Resolved
-------------------------------------------------------------
All of the eleven merger-related class action lawsuits against
Emergency Medical Services Corporation has been voluntarily
dismissed or settled, according to the Company's April 12, 2012,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On February 13, 2011, Emergency Medical Services Corporation (the
Company or EMSC) entered into a Merger Agreement with CDRT
Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware corporation, or Parent, and
CDRT Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent, or Sub.  Parent and Sub are and were,
respectively, affiliates of investment funds sponsored by, or
affiliated with, Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, LLC, or the CD&R
Affiliates.  On May 25, 2011, pursuant to the Merger Agreement,
Sub merged with and into EMSC, with EMSC as the surviving
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, or the
Merger.  All of the outstanding common stock of Parent is owned by
CDRT Holding Corporation, or Holding, which is owned by the CD&R
Affiliates, EMSC management and directors.

All of the eleven purported class actions relating to the
transactions contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger,
which were filed in state court in Delaware and federal and state
courts in Colorado against various combinations of EMSC, the
members of EMSC's board of directors, and other parties have now
been voluntarily dismissed or settled.  Seven of the eleven
actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery beginning on
February 22, 2011, and were consolidated into one action entitled
In re Emergency Medical Services Corporation Shareholder
Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 6248-VCS.   That consolidated
class action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the
plaintiffs on September 26, 2011.  Two actions, entitled Scott A.
Halliday v. Emergency Medical Services Corporation, et al., Case
No. 2011CV316 (filed on February 15, 2011), and Alma C. Howell v.
William Sanger, et. al., Case No. 2011CV488 (filed on March 1,
2011), were filed in the District Court, Arapahoe County,
Colorado.  Those two actions were voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice by the plaintiffs on September 16, 2011 and October 24,
2011, respectively.  Two other actions, entitled Michael Wooten v.
Emergency Medical Services Corporation, et al., Case No. 11-CV-
00412  (filed on February 17, 2011), and Neal Greenberg v.
Emergency Medical Services Corporation, et. al., Case No. 11-CV-
00496 (filed on February 28, 2011), were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado and were also
consolidated.

On March 23, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued a final order of
judgment approving the impending settlement that EMSC had
previously disclosed in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2011, and EMSC incurred no material
charges in connection with the settlement.  That order approved
the settlement as set forth in a Stipulation of Settlement among
the parties dated as of November 28, 2011, and released all of the
plaintiffs' and the class' claims against the defendants.

Founded in 2005, Emergency Medical Services Corporation (EMSC) --
http://www.emsc.net/-- is a provider of emergency medical
services in the United States.  It operates two business segments
-- American Medical Response, Inc. (AMR), the Company's healthcare
transportation services segment, and EmCare Holdings Inc.
(EmCare), the Company's facility-based physician services segment.
The Company is a provider of ambulance services.


ENGLOBAL CORP: Retaliation Claim Pending in "Phillips" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A retaliation claim is still pending in the class action lawsuit
captioned Michael Phillips, on behalf of Himself and Others
Similarly Situated, v. ENGlobal Corporation, according to
ENGlobal's April 12, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On July 7, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, entitled "Michael Phillips, on behalf of Himself and
Others Similarly Situated, v. ENGlobal Corporation."  The lawsuit
was filed on behalf of approximately 200 welding inspectors
seeking damages for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The plaintiffs sought unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.  While ENGlobal settled the
wage and hour portion of the lawsuit and modified its pay
practices, the lawsuit was amended to include a retaliation claim
involving approximately five of the class members.  That portion
of the claim is still pending but it is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations or
financial position.


GERBER LEGENDARY: Recalls 3,000 Gerber(R) Instant(TM) Knives
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Gerber Legendary Blades of Portland, Oregon, announced a voluntary
recall of about 3,000 units of Gerber(R) Instant(TM) Knife.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The locking mechanism on the spring-assisted blade can fail to
engage properly, causing the blade to fold during use, posing a
laceration hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled knives are spring-assisted clip knives with a black
retractable 3.18" blade which can be folded into the textured
black handle when the knife is not in use.  The black handle has
four diagonal slots on both sides.  When closed, the knife
measures 4.57" in length and when open, it measures 7.75".  The
Gerber "sword and shield" trademark appears in silver, on one side
of the blade, close to the handle.  The name "Gerber(R)" is
written in silver on the knife's pocket clip.  This recall
involves model numbers 30-000435 and 31-001101.  The different
model numbers refer to the same knife sold in a box (30-000435)
and in a blister pack (31-001101).  The model number is printed on
the original packaging underneath the barcode.  It is not printed
on the knife.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12163.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
sporting goods stores nationwide from February 2012 through March
2012 for about $50.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Instant
Knives and contact Gerber Legendary Blades to receive a free
replacement.  For additional information, please contact Gerber
Legendary Blades toll-free at (877) 314-9130 between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.gerbergear.com/


GROUPON: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
---------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, an investor-rights law firm, on
April 25 reminded investors of the June 4, 2012, lead plaintiff
deadline in a securities class action filed against Groupon on
behalf of investors.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Groupon
common stock between November 4, 2011, and March 30, 2012, and who
have suffered substantial financial losses are encouraged to
contact Hagens Berman Partner Reed Kathrein by calling (510) 725-
3000.  Investors may also contact the firm via e-mail at
GRPN@hbsslaw.com or by visiting http://www.hbsslaw.com/GRPN

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  The deadline to
move the court for lead plaintiff is June 4, 2012.

Hagens Berman's complaint, filed April 16, 2012, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
alleges that Groupon, certain of its officers, directors and
underwriters of Groupon's Initial Public Offering (IPO) violated
the federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading
statements to investors.

Hagens Berman's lawsuit alleges that Groupon and its underwriters
failed to disclose negative trends in the company's business and
weakness in its internal financial controls, causing its stock to
trade at artificially high prices during the Class Period.

Groupon went public in November 2011.  The company initially
priced its stock at $20.00 per share, but the stock price rose as
high as $27.78 during the Class Period.

On March 30, 2012, Groupon shocked the market with an announcement
that it would revise its fourth quarter, 2011 financial results.
The revision, the company said, would include a reduction in
revenue and an increase in operating expenses.  Groupon also
noted, "In conjunction with the completion of the audit of
Groupon's financial statements for the year ended December 31,
2011 by its independent auditor, Ernst & Young LLP, the Company
included a statement of a material weakness in its internal
controls over its financial statement close process in its Annual
Report on Form 10-K for year ended December 31, 2011."

Following the announcement, Groupon's stock declined sharply,
losing nearly 17 percent of its value on April 2, 2012, closing at
$15.27. The stock has continued to decline, and on April 24, 2012,
closed at $12.01.

                         Whistleblowers

Persons with knowledge that may help the investigation are
encouraged to contact the firm.  The SEC recently finalized new
rules as part of its implementation of the whistleblower
provisions in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Bill.  The new
rules protect whistleblowers from employer retaliation and allow
the SEC to reward those who provide information leading to a
successful enforcement with up to 30 percent of the recovery.

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is an
investor-rights class-action law firm with offices in 10 cities.
The firm represents whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation.


HOLLISTER: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Elevated Entrances
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge
certified a nationwide class that claims Hollister, the
Abercrombie & Fitch subsidiary, is not accessible to shoppers in
wheelchairs.

The complaint in the District of Colorado takes issue with
elevated porch-style entrances at some 249 Hollister stores around
the country.

Hollister offers no alternative entrance for shoppers who cannot
walk up the front steps, the class claims.

Lead plaintiffs Anita Hansen, Julie Farrar and the Colorado Cross-
Disability Coalition sought nationwide class certification after
winning a judgment last year against Hollister stores at two malls
in Colorado.

Chief U.S. District Judge Wiley Daniel found that those store's
"center front elevated entrances" violated the Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA).

The fifth amended complaint seeks an injunction under the ADA to
compel Hollister to alter all of its entrances.

Judge Wiley certified the class on April 20 to include "all people
with disabilities who use wheelchairs for mobility who, during the
two years prior to the filing of the complaint in this case, were
denied the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any
Hollister Co. Store in the United States on the basis of
disability because of the presence of an elevated entrance."

A copy of the Order in Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, et al.
v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al., Case No. 09-cv-02757 (D.
Colo.), is available at http://is.gd/V3HjAE


IMAX CORP: June 14 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP on April 26 disclosed that the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
has approved the following summary notice of a proposed U.S. class
action settlement on behalf of purchasers of common stock of IMAX
Corporation:

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF U.S. CLASS ACTION

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED IMAX CORPORATION SHARES
BETWEEN FEBRUARY 27, 2003, AND JULY 20, 2007, INCLUSIVE (THE
"CLASS PERIOD"), YOU ARE A MEMBER OF A CLASS AND MAY BE ENTITLED
TO RECEIVE A PAYMENT OF A PROPOSED U.S. CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT.

Please read this notice carefully and in its entirety. Your rights
may be affected by the proposed settlement described in this
notice.  A hearing will be held with respect to the proposed
Settlement on June 14, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. before the Honorable
Naomi Reice Buchwald in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, in courtroom 21A, at the United
States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007-
1312.

The Settlement resolves certain claims asserted in a United States
class action against IMAX Corporation, Richard L. Gelfond, Bradley
J. Wechsler, Francis T. Joyce, Kathryn A. Gamble and
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an Ontario Limited Liability
Partnership.

The Settlement consists of twelve million dollars ($12,000,000) in
cash.

The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether the proposed
Settlement with the Defendants, pursuant to which the Defendants
will pay the above amount into a Settlement Fund in exchange for a
release of claims against them, should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the Class.
At the hearing, the Court will also consider whether judgment
should be entered dismissing all claims in the litigation against
the Defendants with prejudice, plans of allocation to distribute
the proceeds of the Settlement, a request by Lead Counsel for
attorneys' fees in an amount up to 25 percent of the Settlement
Fund and reimbursement of expenses in an amount not to exceed
$1.75 million, and any other matters that may properly be brought
before the Court in connection with the Settlement.

A description of the Settlement and the rights of the Class with
respect to the Settlement, along with a proof of claim and release
form, are contained in the notice of pendency and proposed
Settlement of the U.S. Class Action, which has been mailed to all
identifiable potential Settlement class members.  If you are a
member of the Class, you may be entitled to share in the
distribution of the Settlement Fund by filing a proof of claim and
release form no later than October 12, 2012.  You also have the
right to exclude yourself from the Settlement or object to the
proposed Settlement or the other matters to be considered by the
Court at the hearing, in accordance with the procedures described
in the Notice.

To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written
request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice that is received or postmarked no later than
June 4, 2012.  If you are a member of the Class and do not exclude
yourself from the Class AND do not submit a proper proof of claim
and release form, you will not share in the Settlement Fund but
you will be bound by the order and final judgment of the Court
entered into with respect to the Settlement.

In addition, if you purchased IMAX securities on or after February
17, 2006 and held some or all of those securities on August 9,
2006, then you are also a member of the certified class in another
class action against IMAX Corporation and others, in Ontario,
Canada.  If you exclude yourself from the U.S. Action, you will
remain a member of the class in the Canadian Action.  The IMAX
Defendants have made a motion for a final order from the Canadian
court in the Canadian Action seeking to exclude from the
definition of the Canadian class, all persons who do not opt out
of this Settlement, if and when the Settlement is approved by
final Order of the U.S. Court.  If that motion is granted, the
Settlement is approved by a final Order, and you do not opt out of
the U.S. Action, you will be excluded from participating in the
Canadian Action.

Any objections to the Settlement, the plan of allocation, or lead
counsel's request for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses must be filed with the Court and served on counsel for
the parties in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice, such that they are received or postmarked no later than
June 4, 2012.

If you did not receive a copy of the Notice by mail, you may
obtain a copy and a proof of claim and release form, or other
information about the U.S. Action or the Canadian Action, by
writing to the following address, calling the following telephone
number, or on the internet at:

          In re IMAX Corporation Securities Litigation
          c/o Strategic Claims Services
          600 North Jackson Street - Suite 3
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: 1-866-274-4004
          E-mail: info@strategicclaims.net
          Web site: http://www.imaxussettlement.com

If you would like additional information regarding the U.S.
Action, you may contact lead counsel in the U.S. Action at the
addresses set forth below, or call them toll free at 1-800-889-
3701, or visit their Web site at http://www.abbeyspanier.com

          ABBEY SPANIER RODD & ABRAMS, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          ATTN: IMAX Settlement

If you would like additional information regarding the Canadian
Action, you may write or contact lead counsel in the Canadian
Action at the address set forth below, or call their clerk, Nicole
Young, toll free at 1-800-461-6166 (ext. 2380); or e-mail
Ms. Young at nicole.young@siskinds.com or visit
http://www.classaction.ca

          Nicole Young SISKINDS, LLP
          680 Waterloo Street London
          Ontario, Canada

Please do not call the clerk of the Court or Judge Buchwald for
information.

Dated: March 28, 2012

/S/ Clerk of the Court United States District Court Southern
District of New York

          Contact:

          Strategic Claims Services
          Telephone: (610) 565-9202
          Fax: (610) 565-7985
          600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3
          Media, PA 19063


IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Sues Gov't. Over Cigarette Package Warning
------------------------------------------------------------
Les Perreaux, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that hit by
federal regulations and massive class action lawsuits, two of
Canada's tobacco companies have struck back with legal action of
their own.

Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-Macdonald Corp. have launched
proceedings in Ontario Superior Court to attempt to strike down
cigarette package warning regulations that came into effect last
fall.

The new regulations require 75 per cent of packages to be filled
with health warnings, up from the previous level of 50 per cent.

In separate lawsuits filed in Ontario Superior Court, the
companies claim the restriction infringes on their right to
freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The new legal front opens as the companies face down a C$27-
billion class action lawsuit in Quebec Superior court brought on
behalf of cigarette addicts and patients who have suffered
tobacco-related illnesses.  Dozens of lawyers are fighting it out
in a trial expected to last well into 2013.

In the Quebec class action, the tobacco companies have maintained
it was up to the federal government to warn smokers since research
about smoking-related illness and death started to emerge in the
1960s.

"Now that the government has required improved warnings, the
industry is trying to strike them down," said Rob Cunningham, a
senior policy analyst at the Canadian Cancer Society.

In a press release John Clayton, Imperial's vice-president of
corporate affairs, accused the federal government of "avoiding the
country's number one tobacco problem, the illegal tobacco market
(that) avoids all taxes and current regulations."

The statement skirted the main legal challenge for the company
posed by a 2007 Supreme Court of Canada decision that found the 50
per cent cigarette label rule was a reasonable restriction on
freedom of expression given Parliament's aim to reduce smoking.

"They opposed 20 per cent, they opposed 50 per cent.  It's a
highly objectionable legal strategy," Mr. Cunningham said.

Imperial, the biggest of the two companies which filed its suit on
April 25, declined interview requests.  JTI-Macdonald filed its
suit without announcing it early this month.

Canada was the first country to require 50 per cent warnings in
2001 but the new regulations only bring the country back to the
lead pack for tough packaging regulations, according to
Mr. Cunningham.

Australia goes further requiring even larger warnings and bland
generic company labelling.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued Over Advance Payments Processing Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Kratzke, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case
No. 3:12-cv-02094 (N.D. Calif., April 26, 2012) alleges that Chase
subjected the proposed members of the Class, which constitutes
current and former consumers, borrowers and mortgagees, to its
systematic breach of contract and its unfair, unlawful, fraudulent
and deceptive advance principal payments ("APP") processing
practices.

Mr. Kratzke asserts that he periodically submitted APP toward his
mortgage and deed of trust to pay down principal and ultimately,
to save on interest payments, and that Chase was aware that the
payments were made in advance of any required payment.
Nonetheless, he contends, by automated and systematic means, Chase
took possession of the APP funds, held them in suspense, and
delayed crediting of the payments so as to allow unearned interest
to accrue of the loan.

Mr. Kratzke is a citizen of the state of California.

Chase is engaged in the nationwide business of marketing and
providing banking and other financial services.

Chase is a bank and financial holding company, providing a
diversified range of banking and non-banking financial services.
Chase maintains its headquarters in Columbus, Ohio, and is
incorporated in the state of New York.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          J. Jason Hill, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101-5305
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: tcohelan@ckslaw.com
                  msinger@ckslaw.com
                  jhill@ckslaw.com


KAWASAKI MOTORS: Recalls 2,000 Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 2,000 Teryx Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles were
voluntarily recalled by Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., of Irvine,
California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission.  Consumers should stop using the product immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The recalled products have been incorrectly labeled as having a
higher occupant capacity than is safe.  Operating the vehicle with
additional occupants creates an injury or death hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled vehicles are model year 2012 Kawasaki four-wheel
recreational off-highway vehicles with side-by-side seating for
two people, automobile style controls, with model types Teryx 750
FI 4x4, Teryx 750 FI 4x4 LE, Teryx 750 FI 750 4x4 LE SGE and Teryx
750 FI 4x4 Sport.  The model type is printed on the hood of the
vehicles.  The recalled vehicles are available in the solid colors
green, red, grey, silver, black and camouflage (khaki).  A picture
of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12731.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at Kawasaki dealers nationwide from August 2011
through March 2012 for between $10,600 and $12,000.

Consumers will receive a replacement glove compartment cover
stating the correct occupant capacity in the mail.  They can
install it themselves with included instructions or contact their
Kawasaki dealer to schedule a free installation.  For more
information, contact Kawasaki between 8:00 a.m. through 5 p.m.
Monday through Friday toll-free at (800) 954-7228 or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.kawasaki.com/. Kawasaki is
contacting its customers directly.


KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc. continues to defend a securities class
action lawsuit initiated by the Rosen Law Firm, according to the
Company's April 13, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On November 15, 2011, the Rosen Law Firm filed a class action
lawsuit, alleging the Company had violated federal securities laws
by issuing materially false and misleading statements and omitting
material facts with regard to disclosure of related party
transactions and effectiveness of internal controls in past public
filings.  The case is currently at the discovery stage and the
Company believes there is no basis to the lawsuit filed by the
Rosen Law Firm and intends to contest the case vigorously.


MANHATTAN GROUP: Recalls 3,150 Whoozit(R) Starry Baby Rattles
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Manhattan Group LLC, of Minneapolis, Minnesota,
announced a voluntary recall of about 3,000 Whoozit(R) Starry Time
Rattles in the United States of America and 150 in Canada.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The clear spheres on each end of the rattle can break, releasing
small parts, posing a choking hazard to small children.

Manhattan Group has received two reports of rattles breaking.  No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Whoozit(R) Starry Time baby rattles.  The
plastic rattles feature three colored (orange, aqua blue and
purple) stars stacked front to back between two clear spheres on a
flexible stem.  The rattle measures about 5-1/2-inches long.  Each
clear ball, located at the end of the rattle, measures 1-3/4
inches in diameter.  The clear rattles contain small multi-colored
beads and a white plastic disc featuring a blue smiling character
face inside.  The name of the product is printed on the hang tag.
A picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12161.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
specialty toy and baby stores nationwide, in Canada, and online at
http://www.manhattantoy.com/from September 2011 through March
2012 for about $15.

Consumers should immediately take these rattles away from young
children and return it to the store where purchased for a full
refund.  For additional information, contact Manhattan Group toll-
free at (800) 541-1345 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central
Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.manhattantoy.com/


MSC LLC: Files Suit for Alleged Bid Rigging at Tax Lien Auctions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Armstrong at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action claims that 26 people, banks and corporations, "who
are among the largest purchasers of tax sale certificates in the
State of New Jersey," rigged bids at municipal tax lien auctions
to assure that interest rates on property tax obligations would
stay at the maximum 18 percent.

The named plaintiff is MSC, LLC, of Cherry Hill.  "A Tax Sale
Certificate was issued with respect to plaintiff's property, and
such Tax Sale Certificate was purchased by one of the defendants
pursuant to the conspiracy alleged herein," the complaint states.
"As a result of the defendants' conduct alleged herein, the
interest rate associated with plaintiff's delinquent tax
obligation was artificially inflated and plaintiff was damaged
thereby.  Plaintiff is currently facing the prospect of
foreclosure on its property by one of the defendants due to the
TSC associated with its property."

Here's how it works, according to the complaint: "All real
property owners in New Jersey are required to pay, on a quarterly
basis, their respective municipal property taxes and/or charges
for such municipal services as sewer and water services.  When a
property owner fails to make such payments, because, for example,
of financial hardship, New Jersey state law allows the
municipality to sell the delinquent obligation to an investor in
an auction.  This permits the municipality to receive monies so
that it can meet its operating costs without having to raise
additional revenues by increasing property taxes.

"The winning bidder at the auction receives a 'tax sale
certificate' (hereafter 'TSC') which is ultimately recorded as a
lien against the real property.  There are a number of benefits
and rights associated with the TSC including: (1) a first priority
lien on the real property at issue; (2) the right to collect on
the delinquent obligation; (3) interest and penalties (ranging
from 2-6 percent) on the delinquent obligation; (4) and the right
to foreclose on such property in order to collect the property tax
obligation.  Thus, the winning bidder has a significant security
interest in the property which supersedes all other lienholders in
such property.

"Each municipality in New Jersey holds such TSC auctions once per
year.  The bidding at the auction opens with the statutory maximum
of 18 percent interest associated with the delinquent obligation.
With each subsequent bid, the 18 percent interest rate is bid
down, and in many cases, as a result of the bidding process, the
interest rate is bid down to close to zero percent.  Thus, the
more bidding, the better it is for the property owner.

"However, since at least the beginning of 1998 continuing through
the present, the defendants, who are among the largest purchasers
of TSC's in the State of New Jersey, entered in an illegal
agreement, combination or conspiracy whereby they would ensure
there was little to no bidding at the auctions.  Prior to each
auction, the defendants would meet and allocate amongst themselves
the delinquent property tax obligations up for auction, and agree
to refrain from bidding on those which were not allocated to them.
This resulted in there being only one bid at the auction, and
therefore, the opening bid became the winning bid.  This would
ensure that the delinquent property tax obligation carried the
maximum interest rate allowed -- 18 percent -- to the benefit of
the defendants and to the detriment of the property owner.  As a
result of the defendants' illegal conduct alleged herein, real
property owners in New Jersey have paid, or are being threatened
to pay, tens of millions of dollars in interest which has been
artificially inflated due to the defendants' illegal conduct.

"The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice is
currently conducting a criminal investigation into the activities
of the defendants.  At least seven of the defendants named herein
have pled guilty to Sherman Act violations and have admitted to
participating in the conspiracy alleged in this complaint."

The only way for a property owner to remove a tax lien from a tax
sale certificate auction "would be to either pay the entire
obligation, along with interest and penalties, or face foreclosure
so that the lien hold could receive the amount associated with the
lien from the sale of the real property," according to the
complaint.

Here are the defendants: William A. Collins, David M. Farber, Chun
Li, Isadore H. May, Richard J. Pisciotta Jr., Robert E. Rothman,
Robert W. Stein, David Butler, Stephen E. Hruby, Crusader
Servicing Corporation, Royal Tax Lien Services LLC, CCTS LLC, CCTS
Tax Liens I LLC, CCTS Tax Liens II LLC, CCTS Capital LLC, DSDB
LLC, Pro Capital LLC, Michael Fabrikant & Associates Inc., Royal
Bancshares of Pennsylvania Inc., Rothman Realty Corp., M.D. Sass
Investors Services Inc., M.D. Sass Tax Lien Management LLC, M.D.
Sass Municipal Finance Partners -- III LLC, M.D. Sass Municipal
Finance Partners -- IV LLC, M.D. Sass Municipal Finance Partners
-- V LLC and M.D. Sass Municipal Finance Partners - VI LLC.
MSC seeks damages for Sherman Act violations, and an injunction
preventing the defendants from enforcing the artificially inflated
interest rate that was bid on at the tax sale certificate
auctions.

A copy of the Complaint in MSC, LLC v. Collins, et al, Case No.
12-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 14713 in Case No. 33-av-00001 (D.
N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/25/TaxCerts.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          Two Gateway Center, Suite 1201
          Newark, New Jersey 07102-5003
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000


REDBOX AUTOMATED: Movie Renters Can File 2nd Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that movie renters can file a
second amended complaint against Redbox after the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed their privacy
claims, a federal judge ruled on April 24.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in Sterk, et al. v.
Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, Case No. 11-cv-01729 (N.D. Ill.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/25/Redbox.pdf


REDDY ICE: Still Awaits OK of Class Suit Settlement in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
On March 1, 2010, a putative class action Statement of Claim was
filed against Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice in Canada alleging violations of Part VI of the
Competition Act and seeking general damages, punitive and
exemplary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and
costs.  On March 8, 2010, a putative class action Statement of
Claim was filed against the Company in the Court of Queen's Bench
of Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary, in Canada, alleging
violations of Part VI of the Competition Act and seeking general
damages, special and pecuniary damages, punitive and exemplary
damages, interest and costs.

An agreement has been reached to resolve the class actions filed
in Canada against Reddy Ice and Arctic Glacier, Inc.  The
agreement provides that Arctic Glacier will pay CDN$2,000,000, all
claims asserted against Reddy Ice and Arctic Glacier in both
Ontario and Alberta will be dismissed, and Reddy Ice and Arctic
Glacier will be granted full and final releases with regard to
those claims.  Reddy Ice is not making any payment in connection
with this settlement.  The agreement is subject to the execution
of final settlement documents and court approval.

The Company says it is unable to predict what, if any, effect the
filing of bankruptcy by Arctic Glacier may have on this
settlement.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 12, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.


REDDY ICE: Continues to Defend Indirect Purchaser MDL in Mich.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. continues to defend an antitrust
multidistrict litigation pending in Michigan, according to the
Company's April 12, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

Beginning in 2008, a number of lawsuits, including putative class
action lawsuits, were filed against the Company, Reddy Ice
Corporation, Home City Ice Company, Arctic Glacier Income Fund,
Arctic Glacier, Inc. and Arctic Glacier International, Inc., in
various federal and state courts in multiple jurisdictions
alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws and
related claims and seeking damages and injunctive relief.  One of
the state court cases filed against the Company was dismissed.
Pursuant to an Order from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the other civil actions have been transferred and
consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  Home City
entered into a settlement agreement with the direct purchaser
plaintiffs that was approved by the Court on February 22, 2011.

On March 30, 2011, Arctic Glacier announced that it had entered
into a proposed settlement agreement with the direct purchaser
plaintiffs.  Preliminary approval of that settlement was granted
on July 20, 2011, and a final fairness hearing was held on October
28, 2011.  The Court has taken the motion for final approval under
advisement that was approved by the Court on December 13, 2011.

Discovery is ongoing regarding the claims asserted on behalf of
direct purchasers against the Company.  On March 11, 2011, the
Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part
motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser claims.  On May 25,
2011, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class
Action Complaint asserting violations of the antitrust laws of
various states and related claims.  The Company and the other
defendants filed motions to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint.  Those motions were heard on October 28, 2011, and the
Court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss on
December 12, 2011.  The Company filed an answer to the remaining
claims on December 27, 2011.


REDDY ICE: Reached Tentative Agreement to Settle Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. entered into a tentative settlement
agreement resolving a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
in Michigan, according to the Company's April 12, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

Beginning on August 8, 2008, putative class action complaints were
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan asserting claims under the federal securities laws
against the Company and certain of its current or former senior
officers.  On July 17, 2009, the Court consolidated the actions
and appointed a lead plaintiff and interim lead plaintiff's
counsel.  The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint on November 2, 2009.  That complaint purports to assert
claims on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock and alleges that the defendants
misrepresented and failed to disclose the existence of, and the
Company's alleged participation in, an alleged antitrust
conspiracy in the packaged ice industry.  The Company and the
other defendants have filed an answer in that case, a briefing
schedule relating to class certification has been entered, and
discovery is ongoing.

On April 4, 2012, a tentative settlement agreement was reached
with the Plaintiffs pursuant to which the Company will pay $1.0
million in exchange for full and final releases of all claims
asserted against the Company and the individual defendants.  That
agreement is subject to the execution of final settlement
documents and court approval.


STARBUCKS: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Starbucks stiff assistant
managers for overtime pay, a class action claims in Los Angeles
Superior Court.


SWISHER HYGIENE: Roy Jacobs & Associates Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates, a New York City based law firm
representing investors nationwide, has filed a securities class
action on behalf of investors who purchased Swisher Hygiene Inc.
stock commencing on May 5, 2011 and continuing through March 28,
2012.  The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, and alleges securities
fraud in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

For further information, please contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. toll-
free at 1-888-884-4490 or by e-mail to rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com

As alleged in the Complaint, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants repeatedly touted the Company's financial strength and
future prospects.  These statements, however, were materially
false and misleading when made because the Company: (1) was
improperly accounting for business acquisitions; (2) was
improperly calculating its allowance for doubtful accounts
receivable; (3) was overstating its income; (4) was preparing and
filing financial reports in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); and (5) failed to have adequate
internal and financial controls.

On March 28, 2012, Swisher disclosed that its previously-announced
financial results for the first, second and third quarter of 2011
should no longer be relied upon and that its Audit Committee was
conducting an ongoing internal review, which was initiated
following a concern raised by a former employee.  On this news,
Swisher shares declined $0.29 per share, or more than 9.5%, to
close on March 28, 2012, at $2.76 per share.  The Company's stock
declined another $0.33 per share, or nearly 12%, on March 29, 2012
and has not recovered.

If you bought Swisher shares during the Class Period (May 5, 2011
through March 28, 2012), and you are interested in discussing your
rights free of charge, please contact:

        Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
        ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES
        Toll Free: 1-888-884-4490
        E-mail: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com

All motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff must be filed by
May 29, 2012.


TALBOTS INC: Awaits Dismissal Bid Ruling in "Washtenaw" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
On February 3, 2011, a purported Talbots shareholder filed a
putative class action captioned Washtenaw County Employees'
Retirement System v. The Talbots, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-
10186-NMG, in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against Talbots and certain of its officers.  The
complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
Talbots common stock from December 8, 2009, through and including
January 11, 2011, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and sought, among other things, damages and costs and
expenses.  On July 27, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint which continues to assert claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) alleging certain false and misleading statements and
alleged omissions related to Talbots' financial condition,
inventory management and business prospects.  The amended
complaint alleges that these actions artificially inflated the
market price of Talbots common stock during the class period, thus
purportedly harming investors.  On October 17, 2011, Talbots and
the remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss all of the
claims asserted in the amended complaint pursuant to Rules 9(b)
and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 12, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended January 28, 2012.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit and
intends to defend against it vigorously.  At this time, the
Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the proceeding or
an estimate of damages, if any.


TALBOTS INC: Defends "Lowe" Shareholder Class Suit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Talbots, Inc. is defending a shareholder class action lawsuit
commenced in Delaware, according to the Company's April 12, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended January 28, 2012.

On December 12, 2011, a purported Talbots shareholder filed a
putative class action captioned Lowe v. Pfeiffer, C.A. No. 7104-
VCN, in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Talbots and the
members of its Board of Directors.  The complaint, purportedly
brought on behalf of all public shareholders of Talbots common
stock, alleges breach of fiduciary duties against the Board of
Directors (and, as against Talbots, aiding and abetting the Board
of Director's breach) by not properly considering the unsolicited
takeover proposal received on December 6, 2011, from a third
party, not apprising themselves of the true value of Talbots or
the benefits of any potential transaction and generally not taking
steps necessary to comply with their fiduciary obligations.  The
complaint demands, among other things, injunctive relief directing
the Board of Directors to exercise their fiduciary duties to
obtain a transaction in the best interest of Talbots shareholders,
costs and fees.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit and
intends to defend against it vigorously.  At this time, the
Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the proceeding or
an estimate of damages, if any.


TARGET CORP: Recalls 264,000 Bunny Sippy Cups Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Target Corporation; Minneapolis, Minnesota, announced a voluntary
recall of approximately 264,000 Target Home Bunny Sippy Cups.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The ear on the bunny sippy cup can poke a child in the eye area
while using the cup for drinking, posing an injury hazard.

Target has received six reports of incidents where the plastic ear
poked children during routine use of the product.  Cuts and
bruises were reported in three of these reports.

The recall involves two styles of Target Home Bunny Sippy Cups.
The cups come with handles on both sides in pink and blue, female
and male.  Each contains a corresponding white bunny head screw-on
lid and one bent ear and one straight ear.  The cups can be
identified by imprints on the bottom: "TARGET 200020683" for pink
and "TARGET 200020884" for the blue.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12162.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Target stores nationwide from February 2012 through
April 5, 2012, for $3.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled sippy cups
and return them to any Target store for a full refund.  For
additional information, contact Target at (800) 440-0680 between
7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.target.com/


TEAVANA HOLDINGS: Defends Wage and Hour Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Teavana Holdings, Inc. is defending a putative class action
lawsuit in California alleging violations of wage and hour laws,
according to the Company's April 13, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
January 29, 2012.

On December 28, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit styled
Chavez v. Teavana Corp., alleging wage and hour violations of the
California Labor Code for General Managers in California, was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
The plaintiff seeks on behalf of herself and other putative class
members, compensatory damages, restitution, punitive and exemplary
damages, penalties, interest and other relief.

The Company disputes the material allegations in the complaint and
intends to defend the action vigorously.  Due to inherent
uncertainties of litigation and because the lawsuit is in early
procedural stages, the Company says it cannot at this time
accurately predict the ultimate outcome, or any potential
liability, of the matter.


TIBCO SOFTWARE: IPO Suit Global Settlement Has Become Final
-----------------------------------------------------------
The global settlement of a coordinated securities litigation
involving TIBCO Software Inc. and its subsidiary became final
after appeals against the deal resolving the litigation were
withdrawn and dismissed, according to the Company's April 13,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 4, 2012.

The Company, certain of its directors and officers and certain
investment bank underwriters were named in a putative class action
for violation of the federal securities laws in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
"In re TIBCO Software Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation."  This was one of a number of cases challenging
underwriting practices in the initial public offerings (each, an
"IPO") of more than 300 companies, which have been coordinated for
pretrial proceedings as "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation."  Plaintiffs generally alleged that the underwriters
engaged in undisclosed and improper underwriting activities,
namely the receipt of excessive brokerage commissions and customer
agreements regarding post-offering purchases of stock in exchange
for allocations of IPO shares.  Plaintiffs also alleged that
various investment bank securities analysts issued false and
misleading analyst reports.  The complaint against the Company
claimed that the purported improper underwriting activities were
not disclosed in the registration statements for the Company's IPO
and secondary public offering and sought unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased the Company's
securities or sold put options during the time period from July
13, 1999, to December 6, 2000.

A lawsuit with similar allegations of undisclosed improper
underwriting practices, and part of the same coordinated
proceedings, was filed against Talarian Corp., which the Company
acquired in 2002.  That action was captioned "In re Talarian Corp.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation."  The complaint
against Talarian, certain of its underwriters and certain of its
former directors and officers claimed that the purported improper
underwriting activities were not disclosed in the registration
statement for Talarian's IPO and sought unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased Talarian
securities during the time period from
July 20, 2000, to December 6, 2000.

The coordinated litigation matters, including the actions against
the Company and Talarian, have been resolved by a global
settlement.  Under the settlement, the insurers pay the full
amount of settlement share allocated to the Company (its financial
liability is limited to paying the remaining balance of the
applicable retention under Talarian's directors and officers
liability insurance policy).  The settlement received final
approval from the district court in 2009.  Various objectors to
the settlement filed appeals; in January 2012, the last of those
appeals was withdrawn and dismissed and the settlement became
final.


VEOLIA ENVIRONNEMENT: Faces Securities Class Suits in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Veolia Environnement is facing securities class action lawsuits in
New York, according to the Company's April 13, 2012, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

On December 27, 2011, and January 13, 2012, U.S. law firms filed
purported class action complaints in the United States Federal
District Court for the Southern District of New York, against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers.  The
plaintiffs seek to represent holders of the Company's ADRs
(American Depositary Receipts) who acquired them between
April 27, 2007, and August 4, 2011.  The complaint alleges that
certain of the Company's financial communications during the
period from April 27, 2007, to August 4, 2011, were misleading,
purportedly resulting in violations of Section 10(b) of the US
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and other federal securities laws.
The Company considers the complaints to be without merit and
intends to seek their dismissal.


VEOLIA ENVIRONNEMENT: Plaintiffs Appeal Indiana Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal of
their consolidated lawsuit against Veolia Environnement's
subsidiaries, according to the Company's April 13, 2012, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

In April 2008, two subsidiaries of the Company, Veolia Water North
America Operating Services and Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC
(VWI), were named as defendants in two potential class actions
filed before the Indiana state courts, which have since been
consolidated.  The plaintiffs allege that the meter-reading
practices used by VWI for Indianapolis customers were inconsistent
with VWI's contract with the local water authority and with
Indiana consumer protection law.  The plaintiffs claim that VWI
billed customers on the basis of estimates of water usage, rather
than actual usage, more frequently than the contract permitted,
resulting in overcharges that, although later credited to the
customers, deprived the customers of their money for a period of
time.  The plaintiffs also contend that the methods used by VWI to
estimate water consumption were inappropriate and violated
applicable laws.  The plaintiffs are seeking certification of a
class of similarly situated residential water customers.  VWI
believes that its billing and meter reading practices complied
with its contract and with relevant laws and regulations, and that
the claims of the plaintiffs are without merit.  It intends to
defend its interests vigorously.

On January 13, 2009, the court granted a motion to dismiss filed
by Veolia Water North America Operating Services and VWI, but
granted the plaintiffs leave to refile their complaint.  On
January 23, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
against Veolia Water North America Operating Services and VWI, and
also named the water authority of the City of Indianapolis as a
defendant.  Mediation was conducted on April 6, 2010, but was not
successful.  Motions for summary judgment by the City and the
Veolia entities thereafter were granted in part and denied in
part.  A motion for reconsideration by the Veolia entities was
granted, leaving only a breach of contract claim against the
Veolia entities and the City.

On September 23, 2011, the City and the Veolia entities each moved
to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the
grounds that plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative
remedies by not first raising the matter before the Indiana
Utility Regulatory Commission.  The court conducted a hearing on
the motions on December 20, 2011.  On February 1, 2012, the court
issued an order granting defendants' motions to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.  Plaintiffs have filed a notice of
appeal.

Although at this stage of the proceedings it is not possible to
estimate the potential financial consequences, the Company
believes that this lawsuit will not significantly affect its
financial position, results of operations or liquidity.


* CFPB to Probe Mandatory Arbitration Clauses
---------------------------------------------
Jessica Pieklo, writing for Care2, reports that on April 24 the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced a "public inquiry"
into how the financial services industry uses mandatory
arbitration clauses as shields from consumer lawsuits.  This is an
important first step in protecting consumers and returning access
to the court system for those harmed by corporate interests.

The main purpose of mandatory arbitration is to prevent the
creation of a class of plaintiffs by forcing individual consumers
to pursue claims on their own, even if the underlying and
offensive corporate behavior is common among an entire group of
individuals.  Think of it as a de-facto ban on the class action
lawsuit and one that has been very successful.  Without the threat
of damages from a class-action recover corporations are free to
defraud customers with little incentive to change.

"Arbitration clauses are found in many contracts for consumer
financial products," said CFPB Director Richard Cordray.  "We want
to learn how arbitration clauses affect consumers, and how
effective arbitration is in resolving consumers' issues.  This
inquiry will help the Bureau assess whether rules are needed to
protect consumers."

For purposes of conducting the study, the Bureau is asking the
public about the following areas of concern:

    * The prevalence of arbitration clauses in consumer financial
products and services;

    * What claims consumers bring in arbitration against financial
services companies;

    * If claims are brought by financial services companies
against consumers in arbitration;

    * How consumers and companies are affected by actual
arbitrations; and

    * How consumers and companies are affected by arbitration
clauses outside of actual arbitrations.

Companies that use pre-dispute arbitration clauses claim that
arbitration is faster and cheaper than litigation, and at least as
fair.  Others disagree, noting that consumers may not realize that
they have waived their right to a trial because of an arbitration
clause.  And even if consumers understand arbitration clauses,
these clauses may still have significant impacts that warrant
study by the CFPB.

Comments on the Request for Information must be submitted by
June 23, 2012.  After the Bureau completes its study, it will
assess whether imposing conditions or prohibitions on arbitration
clauses would better protect consumers and serve the public
interest.

Christine Hines, Consumer and Civil Justice Counsel for Public
Citizen was pleased with the news.  "We expect that any fair
examination of forced arbitration will conclude that the practice
is devastatingly harmful to consumers.  The most critical step,
then, will be for the CFPB to ban forced arbitration, ensuring
that arbitration is always voluntary for consumers -- not a
kangaroo court or a tool for law-breaking corporations to insulate
themselves from accountability."

With the one year anniversary of the devastating AT&T v.
Concepcion decision, corporations continue to fleece customers
with next to no consequence.


* UK: Government Mulls Class Action-Style Competition Reforms
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sofia Lind, writing for Legal Week, reports that the UK government
is considering introducing 'opt-out' collective actions to enable
consumers and businesses to more easily reclaim losses resulting
from anti-competitive behavior.

The proposal, which could bring the UK's regime more in line with
the US class action system, is part of a consultation launched by
the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) on
April 24.

The exercise will also see BIS consult the UK business community
on widening the jurisdiction of the Competition Appeal Tribunal to
establish it as a "major venue for competition actions in the UK".
However, some lawyers have warned that an opt-out regime could see
companies face multibillion-pound claims brought by just one
claimant, as the system rests on an assumption that every other
purchaser of one product is also behind the claim unless they
actively opt out.

Clifford Chance antitrust disputes partner Luke Tolaini said the
consultation is ducking the issue of which party -- the claimant
or defendant -- will pick up costs in such cases, warning that the
Government must prevent cases being brought without good legal
justification.

He said: "BIS is playing with fire if they are determined to push
matters in this direction.  There are two points in particular on
which they need to be extremely careful and that is to guard
against frivolous claims and to avoid gaming the system heavily
against the defendant."

"The other point to consider is that if we get this system in this
area, it may only be a matter of time before it moves into other
areas of claims."

Norton Rose competition partner Peter Scott added that it will be
essential to avoid the excesses associated with the US class
action system, saying: "In this respect, it is encouraging that
BIS has drawn on the experiences of Canada and Australia, which
have opt-out models with greater safeguards than the US system.
"Nevertheless, the focus of the consultation to extend the
compensation regime will be on how best to achieve the right
balance between facilitating access to justice for SMEs and
consumers, whilst avoiding abusive litigation."

                           *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.





                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *